This is still raging. I was going to let it slide. I hate the mechanics
behind squeeky wheels. Makes it harder to evaluate arguments for their
merits by clogging the filters. Okey, enough metaphores.
On 0, Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Agreed. Cryptic, but in a different way than
On Fri, 2004-02-13 at 11:02, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> On Thu, 2004-02-12 at 14:03, chromatic wrote:
> > The easy answer is that interfaces completely suck while traits don't.
> > :)
> Ok, so what you're saying is that they're solving for exactly the same
> thing, but you don't like the Java imple
On Thu, 2004-02-12 at 14:03, chromatic wrote:
> On Thu, 2004-02-12 at 05:52, Aaron Sherman wrote:
>
> > Perhaps I'm slow, but I don't see the difference between a trait and a
> > Java interface other than the fact that traits appear to be more of a
> > run-time construct.
>
> The easy answer is t
On Thu, 2004-02-12 at 18:50, Uri Guttman wrote:
> there are only a short list of key comparisons possible, int, string,
> float and maybe unicode. i separate int from float since they do have
> different internals in the GRT. it is one area where you do expose
> stuff. otherwise you could just use
Friday 13 February 2004 15:02, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
> If you're *really* looking to get fancy, why not just allow the
> sort specification to be done with SQL? Comfortable,
> well-understood, already has a decade or so of stupid things welded
> into it [...]
>
> Heck, you could even unify map, gr
At 11:52 PM -0700 2/12/04, Luke Palmer wrote:
But it needs some major syntax work so it can feel more like it's a part
of the language instead of a library function. Not, mind, that I think
Perl's syntax needs to be changed at all to accommodate.
Since everyone's well past mad here and deep into d
Larry Wall wrote:
Yes, that's a very good paper, which is why Perl 6 now has something
called Roles, which are intended to degenerate either to Traits or
Interfaces. My take on it is that Roles' most important, er, role
will be to abstract out the decision to compose or delegate. But we'd
like th
> "RA" == Rod Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
RA> Here's my stab at a sort syntax, pulling syntax over from REs:
RA> @out
RA> <== sort key:ri($_->[2]), key:s($_->[4])
RA> <== @in;
RA> Basicly, you have a list of RE syntax like C values, whilch take
RA> various modifiers to
Am Freitag, 13. Februar 2004 01:40 schrieb Larry Wall:
> On Thu, Feb 12, 2004 at 04:29:58PM -0500, Uri Guttman wrote:
> : again, confusing. why should the order of a binary operator mean so
> : much? the order of a sort key is either ascending or descending. that is
> : what coders want to specify.
Here's my stab at a sort syntax, pulling syntax over from REs:
@out
<== sort key:ri($_->[2]), key:s($_->[4])
<== @in;
Basicly, you have a list of RE syntax like C values, whilch take
various modifiers to say how to play with that key, and then an expr on
how to generate the key given element $
10 matches
Mail list logo
